‘I Screwed Up,’ He Admits; but Jurist Defends Other Conduct Challenged
by CJP

By
KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer

Los
Angeles Superior Court Judge Kevin Ross admitted yesterday that he acted
improperly when he jailed a woman charged with a traffic offense who allegedly
provided false information to the court.

“I
accept responsibility,” he told a panel of special masters hearing misconduct
charges brought by the Commission on Judicial Performance. “I realized [the day
after Debra M. Fuentes went to jail] I screwed up.”

Ross
spent most of the day on the witness stand on the first day of a hearing at the
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals building in Pasadena.
The hearing, before a panel consisting of Fourth District Court of Appeal
Justice Judith L. Haller, Ventura Superior Court Judge Vincent J. O’Neill, and
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Michael A. Smith, continues today and is
expected to last the week.

Ross
defended his conduct with respect to other charges explored by commission
attorney Jack Coyle, who called the judge as the case’s first witness. But he
admitted he had no defense to the charge involving Fuentes.

Traffic
Citations

Fuentes
appeared before Ross last year at the Metropolitan Courthouse on Hill
Street for arraignment on two
traffic citations issued in 1995 and 1996 and on a criminal charge of failing
to appear, as to which she had posted bail.

Fuentes
presented a “Wrong Defendant Declaration” indicating that at least one of the
citations was issued to someone else. The declaration did not list a case
number, but the commission alleged in its notice of charges against Ross that
the 1995 citation listed Fuentes’ date of birth, and a height and weight
consistent with hers, while the later citation was apparently issued to someone
who was older, taller, and skinnier.

Ross,
concluding that the declaration was false, ordered that Fuentes be charged with
“false evidence” under Vehicle Code Sec. 16030(a), which actually makes it a
misdemeanor to provide a peace officer or court clerk with false evidence of
insurance.

He
set bail and remanded the defendant into custody. Fuentes was released on bail
two days later, and all charges were later dismissed.

Ross
invaded the jurisdiction of the prosecutor by adding a new charge, and also
“abused your authority and became embroiled,” the commission charged.

Ross
said yesterday that he realized the day after the arraignment, while hearing
another matter involving a similar issue, that he was “completely wrong” about
the Fuentes matter.

“Knowing
she had to spend two days in custody, I felt horrible,” he testified. “—I did
everything in my power to rectify a terrible injustice,” he told the panel,
saying he later learned that Fuentes teenage daughter was in the courtroom at
the time.

Ex
Parte Communication

On
another matter, Ross said he believes he acted properly in a case where he is
accused of having had an improper ex parte communication with a defendant in a
drug case.

The
judge explained that the woman, Lenore Carillo, failed to appear in court and
failed to appear for a court-ordered drug assessment. But the defendant, who
had a history of heroin abuse, later left a voice mail message asking for help,
Ross said.

Acting
out of concern for Carillo, who was pregnant at the time, Ross said, he called
her back and told her to come to court and deal with the charges. That was the
best alternative at the time, he said, because it was after 5
p.m. when he got her message and he could not
reach the prosecutor or Carillo’s attorney at that hour.

His
actions, he said, were consistent with the “spirit of Proposition 36,” the
initiative guaranteeing defendants, such as Carillo, charged with simple drug
possession an opportunity for rehabilitation and dismissal of their cases. In
response to a question by Coyle, however, he acknowledged that court rules
make no distinction between Proposition 36 cases and other cases with respect
to the propriety of ex part communications.

Ross
also defended his decision to order that Deputy Public Defender Lisa Gordon be
removed from his courtroom after she consistently interrupted him during the
sentencing of her client for a probation violation.

The
commission charged that Ross “imposed sentence without affording due process
and interfered with defendant’s right to counsel.” The judge, however, said the
deputy public defender was out of line.

“Her
tone and her behavior toward the court was unacceptable,” Ross said, saying he
would have been justified in holding her in contempt but settled for “a time
out.” Gordon, he said, is a “passionate advocate,” he said, who simply went too
far in this particular instance.

Ross
was similarly unapologetic for having referred to Gordon’s client as a
“pathological liar” during that same hearing. “He had a continuing problem
telling the truth,” the judge said.